LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

I fully support John Roberts for the US Supreme Court

Quote:

Penske_Account
http://www.stonegiant.com/Politics/Hillary_Lesbian.gif

Nice of them to crop the photo at her ass. Did she recently hire Britney's PR flak?

Vote early, vote often

I fully support John Roberts for the US Supreme Court

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Nice of them to crop the photo at her ass. Did she recently hire Britney's PR flak?

I'm wearing X-Ray Specs. It's still a double wide load, trust me on this one.

I fully support John Roberts for the US Supreme Court

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Two words, black pant suit.

Seriously, I don't think I have ever seen a woman who had absolutely no variety in her clothing. Until Hillary. At first, back on infirmation.com, even I thought that the many posts perseverating on her ubiquitous black pantsuit were a little beyond the pale but at this point I really wonder whether the Junior Senator from NY simply has no fashion whatsoever; doesn't own a mirror; is colorblind; and/or is trying to send some type of encrypted message to her more militant followers (or RedChinese handlers).

However, to preempt the conjecture, if she wears that thing because she thinks that black can help slim her overwhelming hips and behind, she is seriously deluding herself. Hell, if it only worked!

You can bet your nads that she and her handlers have put infinitely more thought and more prescient thought into what she wears than you ever have or ever will. One thing you can say about both the Bush team and the Clinton team is that they are smart and they are total professionals. They don't sneeze without thinking through all the political consequences. They know exactly what they are doing, and don't ever doubt it for a moment.

According to Republican sources cited by the New York Times, the other four finalists for the nomination which went to Roberts were:

Wilkinson
Luttig
Clement
Jones

Quote:

[iTyrone Slothrop [/i]
According to Republican sources cited by the New York Times, the other four finalists for the nomination which went to Roberts were:

Wilkinson
Luttig
Clement
Jones

McConnell didn't make the short list?

I stand pat that Luttig is next to be tapped, and I find Burger's thoughts on the CJ issue to very interesting and possibly prescient.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
According to Republican sources cited by the New York Times, the other four finalists for the nomination which went to Roberts were:

Wilkinson
Luttig
Clement
Jones

No love for Posner.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, the "opt out" concept is premised on that fact that (i) you can unilaterally trump the "rights" of the mother over the fetus, but (ii) the father has no say in the matter.

1) The argument that "it's her body, she chooses" really doesnt work, because he then has a legal obligation to pay for 18 years thereafter.

2) I would also suggest that it if is indeed a defined right or entitlement, then declining the male any say in the matter - when his fiscal rights are seriously at issue - violates the Equal Protection clause

3) The repsonse "well, he chose to do it" can easy be countered with the argument "well, so did she". Yet you chose to give her an easy out, and he has no say for 18.75 years.

As a threshold issue, the "opt out" can only exist where abortion remains legal.* Where abortion is illegal, its mooted. You can't illegalize abortion and opt out of responsibility when you impregnate someone. So if you support the opt out, by necessity, you support the right to choose. The opt out, I think, is a way of crediting the man (by decreasing his financial obligations) for the fact that he does NOT want the child, i.e., he wants the woman to abort. If she can't abort by law, then she's not having the child against the man's wishes. Therefore, he can't get any "credit" for the fact that he wants to her to abort (either logically, or as a matter of contract law, since one can't get credit for another's refusal to engage in an illegal act [no cosideration]).

The "opt out" is also limited and non-applicable to our debate. It addresses a situation in which the woman wants to keep the child and the man wants her to abort. The situation we've been arguing for days involves a woman wanting to abort.

You haven't made any case for allowing a man to force a woman to bear his child where she wants to abort. The law looks to competing interests, and in that hypo, the woman's interest wins every time.

*I assume you didn't raise the opt out idea until you were asked to explain it because you realized it didn't apply to what we were discussing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No love for Posner.

Too old by far, and too published.

That ship sailed when Reagan was still in the white house.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Too old by far, and too published.

He's also too smart for SCOTUS.

I fully support John Roberts for the US Supreme Court

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You can bet your nads that she and her handlers have put infinitely more thought and more prescient thought into what she wears than you ever have or ever will.

Spank,

You know I love you (platonically, nttawwt) as a partisan ally on the internet, but an assertion like this highlights your status as a newber on these boards.

Even assuming that you are correct, I stand firm (no pun intended) that none have waxed as poetic (no pun intended) about her beautiful bovine thighs being covered in silky pantyhose and her ample ass resting in silky lace briefs as I.

Quote:

So 4 of the top 5 were in my top 10. Apparently someone in the Admin is following my work here (and on the DU).

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You haven't made any case for allowing a man to force a woman to bear his child where she wants to abort. The law looks to competing interests, and in that hypo, the woman's interest wins every time
.

I am sure Presidents Gore and Kerry and their NARAL and NOW approved Supreme Court nominees agree with those conclusions. Keep fiddling that tune while Roe burns, Nero.

Another missed marketing opportunity

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
This might be my first and last post here. Frankly, you all frighten me. I liked you much better when my only view into your heads was on the FB. Anyway, does this mean you are also against capital punishment too? I am just a simpleton, but it has always struck me how both liberals and conservatives have seemingly inconsistent positions on both issues.

I am against capital punishment, but not because of any moralistic sense that execution of murderers is wrong. I am against it because I am all too familiar with the way the criminal court system works.

If we required DNA evidence or the like, provided competent and sufficiently funded counsel, and made every effort to prevent race-based prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing, then I would not be against capital punishment.

If we as a society made the decision on abortion in the same way that we made the decision on capital punishment, then I would be against abortion too.

Consistent enough for you?